Putting aside the variables that could be involved, and the how's or why's and likelihood of this situation occuring:

1. Would you be legally justified in shooting a BG to save your dog (I think I know, or can guess the answer here).

2. Would you be morally justified in doing so.

3. Given your answer to the above, would you?

:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting to save your dog................." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

nemesis

January 1, 2003, 05:32 PM

That may come down to property laws. As I understand it, you couldn't shoot a BG for abusing or attacking your dog but Texas does allow the use of deadly force to prevent damage to or loss of property.

4v50 Gary

January 1, 2003, 05:47 PM

Self defense does not extend to the protection of animals. You must articulate that the BG was a threat to you and that Rover/Fifi/Fluffy was intercepting BG when you shot him/her.

El Tejon

January 1, 2003, 05:53 PM

Deadly force? No, maybe in Sweden and California.:D Or maybe if you had like a helper monkey or guide dog you could make an argument (could be a case in some state on this).

Otherwise, as a general rule (each state has its own law) you may use reasonable force to defend your property, which includes your doggie.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 05:55 PM

Hmmm...I sense a huge debate brewing over whether or not animals are "property" and the like...

Anyhow,

1. Legally justified? *shrug*

2. Morally? HELL FRICKIN' YES!!!

3. Would I? Of course.

AZTOY

January 1, 2003, 06:07 PM

Hmmm...I sense a huge debate brewing over whether or not animals are "property" and the like

Well in AZ if a wild dog is "running" your livestock. You can shoot the dog .So in AZ animals are property and you can protect it.

I had to killed a wild dog that was going after my horses.

Beren

January 1, 2003, 06:17 PM

Morally or legally justified? Absolutely not. Animal life is never equal in value to that of humans.

2dogs

January 1, 2003, 06:22 PM

Drjones

You may be right, you may be wrong- but you got real addytood:neener: :evil:

PlayTheAces

January 1, 2003, 06:28 PM

Well, I did pop a cat once who reached down from a wall and clawed my dog's nose. That was one surprised cat.

38Mike

January 1, 2003, 06:40 PM

"Sounds good to us"

Rover and Heidi

:D

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 06:51 PM

Hmmm...I sense a huge debate brewing over whether or not animals are "property" and the like...

I knew I shoulda clarified...

Some people will say that an animal is equal in value to a TV or car; it is just another posession, and not worth shooting a human over.

I disagree. I care very highly about animals, and I think that anyone who values criminal life over animal is the one with issues.

Furthermore, there was an interesting thread on TFL about shooting someone over property.

I happen to think that it is morally justifiable to shoot someone over property. If you don't like that, don't steal, and you won't have a problem! :neener:

JeepDriver

January 1, 2003, 06:57 PM

If I'm ever in the position of having to draw a weapon on someone that is hurting my dog it's because their in my living room.

My Lab is 5 1/2 years old and is my only child. My wife worries more about the dog then me sometimes. I don't know if I could keep myself from shooting someone hurting my dog.

Legal, I don't know
Moral, To Me Yes

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 07:02 PM

Oh, and if I happened across some situation with some sicko hurting or torturing an animal intentionally, I think it perfectly morally correct to send more than a few bullets their way.

The laws should be changed to reflect that.

Again, I think its simple; if you don't want to catch bullets over something like that, don't do it.

Jeffrey Dahmer got his start torturing squirrels in his backyard. He later progressed to murder 17 people, butcher them, keep various parts of theirs in the freezer (IIRC, he had a penchant for keeping penises) and ate them as well.

People who torture animals have major issues. They might very well be beyond help, too.

Soap

January 1, 2003, 07:04 PM

Would this arguement hold up in court: that since the BG was using deadly force on your dog that you feared they would use deadly force on you when they finished with the dog?

Soap

January 1, 2003, 07:07 PM

Drjones- First off I love dogs. But I'm also a hunter. So if the laws were changed to allow deadly force on people who harm animals, would this include hunters? I'm not trying to start an arguement, just that animal protection laws are a slippery slope.

Glock Glockler

January 1, 2003, 07:23 PM

Dan, whose property is the animal you're hunting? Is it private property, and done so with the owner's consent, or is it the property of the govt, and done so with their consent?

Beren

January 1, 2003, 07:28 PM

My family has owned cats and dogs my entire life. I loved them all, and wished I could've found the scumball who served intentionally to hit one of my cats.

That said, I stand by my earlier statement: protection of animal life in no way justifies the taking of human life. I don't quite classify pets as property, but even if I did, I couldn't justify shooting someone over my TV set either.

I /do/ see a justification to use reasonable force to prevent undue harm to someone's pet or property. If they are inside your home, I wouldn't blame you for having a firearm drawn and held ready. If they fail to comply with verbal instructions, shoot to stop. (Center of mass controlled pairs, evaluate, adjust as needed.)

If I came across someone torturing an animal, I would instruct them to stop. If they ran or otherwise failed to obey, I would proceed with calling the police, provide first aid for the animal if possible, etc.

Only if the person posed a grave threat of injury to me or another person would I use lethal force in defense. I hate to say it, but I view the "shoot the guy who is hurting my dog" mentality as one that borders on the barbaric. *** makes you judge, jury, and executioner? Lethal force is ONLY justifiable if the person employing it or another person (read person, not animal) is in immediate risk of grave physical harm.

It's a slippery slope that justifies the tactics of every enviroweenie on the planet. It's okay to spike trees to prevent them from being chopped down - they are LIVING THINGS without any other means of defense! It's okay to gun down that hunter before he shoots the deer!

Just witnessed a guy shooting your dog, on your property? I view it as reasonable to order him to drop the gun, and to shoot him if he fails to comply.

What if the the guy who shot your dog was acting in self-defense? If your dog gets loose and runs at a little girl, do you expect daddy to trust in its good intentions? Hell no! If it's more than a small dog, it is as good as hamburger.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 07:30 PM

Daniel: Well clearly not, since (and this is a big assumption on my part) hunters aren't out to HURT animals; they just want to kill them.

Now, before you start calling me a hypocrite, read on:

In my post above, I was speaking more to cruel and unusual acts and torture. I did not intend to imply hunting in this.

Now, if a hunter KNOWINGLY shoots an animal (doesn't kill it) and leaves it for dead, or leaves it crippled, that is different. That is not hunting; that is torturing animals. Like those idiots that set steel traps and never check them, leaving wounded animals to chew their own legs off....sick....

Basically, if you set out to hunt an animal for food, and do so, that is perfectly fine. Hunting for "sport" is NOT fine, and in my little fantasy world, I would like to see people who hunt "just for the fun of it" catch a few bullets themselves. ESPECIALLY those who hunt rare and exotic animals.

But I digress...

Basically, hunting for food purposes is fine. Hunting for any other is not, IMHO.

Soap

January 1, 2003, 07:30 PM

GG- Good point. But what I got from Drjones' example is that deadly force could be justified in a case where a person tortures animals, even if they belong to that person.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 07:32 PM

But what I got from Drjones' example is that deadly force could be justified in a case where a person tortures animals, even if they belong to that person.

Yes, because again: I do not consider animals to be mere "property" or posessions for people to do as they wish with them.

If I caught someone torturing ANY animal, I don't care if they gave birth to it themselves, they should catch bullets.:fire:

Soap

January 1, 2003, 07:59 PM

Drjones- I'm just playing devil's advocate so bear with me here.

hunters aren't out to HURT animals; they just want to kill them.

This is a VERY fine line. It could be plausibly argued that killing the animal actually hurts it.

Now, if a hunter KNOWINGLY shoots an animal (doesn't kill it) and leaves it for dead, or leaves it crippled, that is different. That is not hunting; that is torturing animals.

Let's use this example: I shoot a deer on my property and wound it. It runs onto property that is owned by say a private corporation. They do not grant me passage onto their land. Did I torture the animal and can deadly force be justified?

Hunting for "sport" is NOT fine, and in my little fantasy world, I would like to see people who hunt "just for the fun of it" catch a few bullets themselves. ESPECIALLY those who hunt rare and exotic animals.

What if I catch fish for sport? Do I deserve a hook in the mount and being dragged around by it?

If I caught someone torturing ANY animal, I don't care if they gave birth to it themselves, they should catch bullets.

The definitions of "torture", "hurt", and "sport" would be difficult to put in black and white to make it law. Ever see a chicken farm? There is more animal cruelty in a pack of Tenderbest chicken breasts than there is in hunting a kudu.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 08:10 PM

Drjones- I'm just playing devil's advocate so bear with me here. No prob! Happy to oblige! Interesting debate here! :D

This is a VERY fine line. It could be plausibly argued that killing the animal actually hurts it. Well, I suppose, but does a bullet to the head really hurt? (Assuming it kills instantly, of course...) If an animal dies instantly from a wound, does it really hurt? I suppose for a fraction of a second, but no one is alive to tell us! :p

Let's use this example: I shoot a deer on my property and wound it. It runs onto property that is owned by say a private corporation. They do not grant me passage onto their land. Did I torture the animal and can deadly force be justified? Well, IMO, no, because the cruel intent wasn't there. You weren't INTENDING to cause it harm or pain.

What if I catch fish for sport? Do I deserve a hook in the mount and being dragged around by it?
Hmmm...I dunno if perhaps its because fish aren't so high up on the "awwww" scale or not, but I don't feel that way about fish. I've heard they are dumber than the water they are swimming in, so I'm not sure the level of "rights" they are due...

The definitions of "torture", "hurt", and "sport" would be difficult to put in black and white to make it law. Ever see a chicken farm? There is more animal cruelty in a pack of Tenderbest chicken breasts than there is in hunting a kudu. I agree. Perhaps if there was a law, it should be very narrow and specific. I'm talking about intentional acts of cruelty to animals. In the above situation, again, the intent to be cruel to the chickens isn't there.

Like you see someone cutting the leg off of a dog. Heck, somewhere I read a story about a guy who buried some kittens up to their heads and ran over them with his lawn mower.
:what: :cuss: :cuss:

THAT deserves many, many bullets, in my mind.

We could debate "what ifs" all night, but I think you know what I'm talking about; wanton, cruel torture of animals.

After spending too much time at the Michael Moore forums, I'm feeling the need to thank you for the polite debate! :rolleyes:

Mike Irwin

January 1, 2003, 08:13 PM

Yes.

My dogs aren't just my property, they're my friends.

Soap

January 1, 2003, 08:19 PM

Drjones-

Well, I suppose, but does a bullet to the head really hurt? (Assuming it kills instantly, of course...) If an animal dies instantly from a wound, does it really hurt? I suppose for a fraction of a second, but no one is alive to tell us!

and

Well, IMO, no, because the cruel intent wasn't there. You weren't INTENDING to cause it harm or pain.

Okay, so let's assume that I get a ruling of not guilty. But by being in court in the first place, I would have incurred monetary and psychological costs. So these new laws would have had an adverse effect on my peaceable existence.

Hmmm...I dunno if perhaps its because fish aren't so high up on the "awwww" scale or not, but I don't feel that way about fish. I've heard they are dumber than the water they are swimming in, so I'm not sure the level of "rights" they are due...

So we're only saving the cute animals or the ones with high intelligence? Suppose I have a cute animal that is dumber than a fish, can I "torture" it? :scrutiny: ;)

We could debate "what ifs" all night, but I think you know what I'm talking about; wanton, cruel torture of animals.

I see exactly what you are talking about. But you're also talking about changing laws to protect animals. I'm just saying that those laws would have to be VERY specific and include extremely detailed descriptions and definitions. The forging of such laws would be nearly impossible and they would most likely lead to a high number of cases where people subjectively believed that someone was "torturing" animals. I've met people that think that wearing leather is torture...

Soap

January 1, 2003, 08:21 PM

To answer the original question:

1) Probably wouldn't hold up in a court.

2) Yes.

3) Most likely.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 08:24 PM

Well Daniel, you raise many good points in your reply to me above. I really can't argue.

I am the last person who would ask for MORE laws about anything, however the current laws should be changed to allow more leeway in such situations.

I guess it would really have to go on a case-by-case basis...

Anyhow, seeing as how you agree with me in responding to the inital post, we'll just leave it at that! :D

444

January 1, 2003, 09:16 PM

. Legally justified? I don't know, but I doubt it.
2. Morally? In my mind, yes.
3. Would I? No. However, if it were legal and there were no legal consequences, I could easily justify it in my own mind.
Note that I am talking about my pet dog. Not wild animals.

"protection of animal life in no way justifies the taking of human life"

This is interesting. Consider the fact that many dogs are perfectly willing to risk their lives to protect ours. And I dare say that most of us would be able to live with that. For example; a child is playing outside. Some nut decides to try to hurt the child and that person is seriouly hurt of killed by the child's dog. Or you are lying in bed when someone breaks into your home. Before you can sort the situation out, the person is killed by your family dog who was protecting you and guarding his territory. Yet, if we return the favor by protecting the dog, we can't justify that.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 09:19 PM

"protection of animal life in no way justifies the taking of human life"

This is interesting. Consider the fact that many dogs are perfectly willing to risk their lives to protect ours. And I dare say that most of us would be able to live with that. For example; a child is playing outside. Some nut decides to try to hurt the child and that person is seriouly hurt of killed by the child's dog. Or you are lying in bed when someone breaks into your home. Before you can sort the situation out, the person is killed by your family dog who was protecting you and guarding his territory. Yet, if we return the favor by protecting the dog, we can't justify that.

Interesting indeed....they are good enough to save our lives, but not good enough for us to save theirs...:rolleyes: :(

TheLastBoyScout

January 1, 2003, 09:26 PM

(1) Would I be legally justified in shooting JUST TO SAVE MY DOG? probably not.
(2) Would the sick ------ get shot anyway? bet your @$$ he will. (3) The justification would run something like this: I saw a man turn towards me, covered in my animal's blood, I ordered him to freeze, and I WAS IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE when he continued towards me, so I shot him.

duncan

January 1, 2003, 09:30 PM

NEVER can you lawfully take a human life for that of an animal - beloved or not.

I love all of my dogs but the law is clear. As a licensed practicing attorney in Ohio and Washington, former prosecutor, you would be violating the law.

You cannot even use deadly force to protect property if it's just the property you are protecting. and unforetuneatley the dog would qualify as property.

Sorry Mike. But dogs have no Constitutional rights - animal rights yes but the Founders left them out in the barn in the cold.

Now I said nothing of using equalivent force to defend your dog. But deadly force would be hard to defend.

Now if another dog was viciously attacking your dog and your dog did not have a chance and you would risk serious harm by breaking the animals up, deadly force may be warranted on the attacking dog. Or if a dog is attacking livestock, in many states, it can be shot.

Morally justified in taking a human to save a dog? No. Human life, even that of a criminal is still worth more than my animal's. Sorry to say. People change and even criminals go straight. May not be able to replace my dog but I know that a dead man leaves one heck of a hole in that son's family tree. No dad. No husband. No uncle.

Not worth it.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 09:32 PM

Duncan: See my post two above yours.

Also: Is it better to respect the law, or to respect what is right? (Thoreau)

Beren

January 1, 2003, 09:36 PM

Interesting indeed....they are good enough to save our lives, but not good enough for us to save theirs..

So you would only kill a human to protect an animal capable of saving your life? What if you owned a poodle?

How about a pet goldfish, and I was about to swallow it - would you shoot me, cut open my stomach, and put the goldfish back in its bowl?

Where do you draw the line? Why is a dog equal to a human's life, when a goldfish is not?

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 09:40 PM

So you would only kill a human to protect an animal capable of saving your life? What if you owned a poodle?

What if said poodle alerted you to an intruder in your home, giving you time to arm yourself and deal with him? Isn't that helping to save your hide?

How about a pet goldfish, and I was about to swallow it - would you shoot me, cut open my stomach, and put the goldfish back in its bowl?

See my post above regarding fish. I dunno 'bout them... *shrug*

Cal4D4

January 1, 2003, 09:44 PM

If I have taken the animal into my family, that animal is expected to fulfill it's functions and me mine. Any serious attack on the family would be considered as no less than a prelude to or part of a further attack on the other members. Self defense is a right. If "Fluffy" is out gutting sheep, "Fluffy" is on her own. If "Fluffy" takes the first hit from an interloper, intentions are clear and it's time to get with it. Loyalty and rule of claw and fang predates and preempts all. No moral conflicts.

duncan

January 1, 2003, 09:44 PM

On the side I teach philosophy and ethics.

Most of our dogs can and will defend our property and our lives.

They usually give us unconditional love.

But when it comes down to it, Fido is just a dog. He has a 6-12 year life span. When fido dies, several family members and a couple of community folks miss him.

But just consider the ripples to a family if you actually shot a man for a dog.

Again, we have the choice. in these situations, we usually don't have a choice. Fido is the first line of defense. he willfully gives his life. And so do many fine K9 dogs. To save the life of their human handler. It's not really hard to train into them.

But we as human have to consider the consequences. If the burglar kills your dog in front of your bedroom and you confront him and he is armed, then you may have an argument of a serous threat to life, he killed the dog, you're next. Then it could be legally and morally justified.

But if you find the dog shot or dead and the burglar is leaving your property, a citizen arrest is warranted. beleive me, many hardcore criminals despise anyone who is cruel to animals.

That bad guy will get what he deserves in prison. many states actively prosecute. Call the Human Society and you have a good case to lock that fellow up for a good year or two if not more. may qualify as a felon if he was trespassing, broke into your house, and threatened you with a weapon. It can add up.

Now if the bad guy is not near or in your house, you may have the duty to retreat, even if he killed your dog. Because not everybody owns dogs and loves animals. You have to show that you acted reasonably when concluding that he was a serious threat and you had to shoot him. Near the fenceline, back of the yard, not going to cut it.

if you dog lunged at him and burst through the screen door on a farm property, you 'd know he was up to no good and perhaps deadly force would be warranted.

Again, if the lives of any of your human family members are seriously threatened and the bad guy has killed your dog, you have the right of self defense. Just make sure your shooting is to protect your family - not just the dog.

It all depends. Just be sure. There is no undo in a shooting scenario.and even if you are justified, you can still lose your house in paying for criminal defense attorneys if your insurance policy has no such self defense coverage.

It's really a lot to consider.

And I hope I never have to choose.:uhoh:

Stetson_CO

January 1, 2003, 09:45 PM

Where do you draw the line? Why is a dog equal to a human's life, when a goldfish is not?

Oh, I'd say when a goldfish can jump out of the bowl and protect you, or when you can flush your dog when it dies.

I don't care if it is legal or not, try to kill my dog and I will shoot you...If my dog is attacking you for no reason or attacking a small child, I will kill it myself.

When having a pet, you also accept the responsibility for it.

c):{
"Ive met more dogs that I like, than men"

444

January 1, 2003, 09:46 PM

Beren:

"Where do you draw the line?"
I drew the line in my post: "Note that I am talking about my pet dog."

The reason I draw the line there might be because the only pet I have is a dog. I have grown quite attached to my dog, and him to me. I see my dog as intelligent, brave, loving etc. I have said this before on other threads of this nature, but I see in my dog what I wish I could see in most humans. Most of the faults that humans possess are not reflected in dogs. Their love for you is uncondional. I can't say that about anyone else in the world other than perhaps my parents. And to me, that deserves a return of that love in kind. I realize that I am old fashioned, but I think there is a lot to the golden rule. On the other hand, just because someone is human doesn't mean a thing to me.

Duncan, you make good points, and from the viewpoint of moral philosophy and rational thinking I would be forced to agree with you. However, this is much more an emotional issue than a rational one. For most of us, our pets are more like children than animals. If we see one of them threatened with injury, or actually being attacked, I think our instinctive reaction would be to treat the situation as an attack on one of our children, and take steps accordingly. If someone attacked my pet(s), I doubt if I would even stop to think about it - I'd act (or react), and then worry about it later. And, despite being a pastor and all that, I really don't think I'd lose much sleep over it...

444

January 1, 2003, 09:51 PM

"Fido is just a dog."
If I exhibited the behavior of a dog and someone said that about me, I would be honored. As I said, the traits exhibited by my dog are what I consider to be the best traits exhibited by the best humans.

"I know that a dead man leaves one heck of a hole in that son's family tree. No dad. No husband. No uncle. "
That is the way I feel about my dog. If he was gone, there would be one heck of a hole in my life.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 09:54 PM

But when it comes down to it, Fido is just a dog. He has a 6-12 year life span. That is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Regarding age, then you don't think a child under 12 dying matters? (I'm not really implying that; just for arguments' sake, you know...)

But just consider the ripples to a family if you actually shot a man for a dog. Replace "dog" with "your life" "your property" etc. I doubt his family would really care if you shot him to save your own hide.

Too bad, so sad. He PUT himself in that situation BY HIS CHOICE.

As I think I've said several times in this thread already; if you don't want to risk getting shot for doing something, don't do it!

duncan

January 1, 2003, 09:58 PM

Ask any attorney.

In this scenario, you'd have to hire Johnnie Cochran for your defense.

Love my dogs but dang, I'm not willing to lose my house for him or her.

While we talk of emotion, remember, history has a cold hand. Juries look back at these sitautions with all of the knowledge in front of them. It is the flaw in the process.

People will be very quick to judge you.

And that is my fear.

Okay, Fido is dead. he is not coming back.

Are you willing to flush your house, your marriage, you kids' college savings, your personal savings, your 401K, everything you got - for a dog? It could run you $60K to $80K?

I'm not - a wife and three sons at home. They ARE my world. All else can go to pot. Human family first.

duncan

January 1, 2003, 10:04 PM

What if the bad guy was a guy that just got served divorce papers after catching his wife in bed with another man.Recently laid off and his stock portfolio tanked.

He went on a heavy drinking binge.

And now he's made some very bad choices. Broke into your house. stumbled over your dog in the hallway, broke Fido's neck.

Does he deserve to die?

Or what he is fleeing from your house - Fido dead? Willing to shoot a man in your house who is retreating/leaving? If you do, you'd get manslaughter. Bad guy now not so bad - and now you the defender are now the aggressor.

Does Fido have a soul? A chance at heaven? A chance for redemption? Take a look at the "Shawshank Redemption" and then let's talk. Humans can change their ways. Our dogs only have alittle latitute and it's mainly behavioral training. Humans have souls. Can you take a soul is the latent relevant question.

For me, no - unless I have to.

While I could not comprehend violence against animals, he'd have to clearly pose a serious threat to our safety.

Not a simple solution. But a good debate;)

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 10:12 PM

What if the bad guy was a guy that just got served divorce papers after catching his wife in bed with another man.Recently laid off and his stock portfolio tanked.

He went on a heavy drinking binge.

And now he's made some very bad choices. Broke into your house. stumbled over your dog in the hallway, broke Fido's neck.

You are right; he sure did make some bad choices! Breaking into anothers' home is the worst. He'll be lucky to leave alive!

Honestly, your thinking is along the lines of the antis: "What if someone gets drunk, gets mad, and uses their gun to start randomly shooting people! That would be horrible, therefore, we should ban guns!"

Really, that is awful what happened to our hypothetical guy, but no matter how drunk or angry (or both) I've ever gotten, I have never had the urge to commit a crime, let alone break into a home!

There is NO justification for breaking and entering. Period.

That said, I'm unclear: did he intentionally break Fido's neck, or accidentally do it? If it was an accident, then no, he shouldn't be shot just for that. (Though he might get shot regardless of the dog for breaking and entering...:rolleyes: )

Again, please read my previous posts! Most of what you ask has already been covered.

No intent (accident) = Lesser crime

Intent = Worse crime

Mark Benningfield

January 1, 2003, 10:42 PM

Hello all.

Boy, this is a good one!:) It seems that a lot of us are trying to hash out the "legal justification" part of it. I think that depends to a very large degree on the jury and the jurisdiction, insofar as the question of whether you would be exonerated. Now, before I go on, let me say that as a rule, I love dogs, but not all dogs are Lassie. When I was a kid, we had a dog come on the place and proceed to kill some of our chickens. Well, my old man sent him off to doggie heaven with his Remington .22. About 2 hours later, a man comes walking up the road and asks me and my brothers if we had seen a black dog. My older brother, being a big-mouth even then, pipes up "My daddy SHOT your dog!" Well, this fella turns beet red and heads back down the road. Sure enough, about an hour later, here he comes, trailing a bull whip for my old man. Well, us kids started squalling and my Dad steps out into the yard to meet him. Coulda been a bad situation, except when that old boy got about half way across the yard, my mother stepped out onto the porch with the 12 guage double barrel.

Now, was my Dad justified in shooting the dog? Yes; those were our chickens going down his neck. I'm also pretty sure that fella felt justified in trying to give my Dad a whippin'. Would my mother have been justified shooting him if he did? Yep. No doubt about it. So, as far as the legal part of the question goes, it depends on the exact situation, which is where the jury comes in.

Morally, I think the same holds true. If the BG were on my place, physically torturing (not just irritating or baiting) my dog, I would start with beating the crap out of him. I would not just up and shoot him out of hand. Now, if he were using a deadly weapon, I would intervene in such a way as to make him have to go through me to get to my dog. If he persisted, then, since he did have a deadly weapon, he could explain his motives to Jesus. That way, I would not be killing him to save my dog's life, but my own. Because no way in the world is the life of a beast worth more than the life of a man. Even the lowest, scuzziest, slimiest, piece of crud BG has an immortal soul and is loved by God. To slay him in order to preserve the life of a beast -- even one that is a blessing and a comfort -- is wrong.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 10:49 PM

Hello Mark. Frankly, I think the discussion is more centered on the moral aspect, as in most places, you would very likely get screwed legally if you shot someone over "just a dog."

Because no way in the world is the life of a beast worth more than the life of a man. Even the lowest, scuzziest, slimiest, piece of crud BG has an immortal soul and is loved by God. To slay him in order to preserve the life of a beast -- even one that is a blessing and a comfort -- is wrong.

That is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

You would still say that for a child molester, or a serial rapist?

444

January 1, 2003, 10:58 PM

Mark, I have to say that I don't agree with any of that, but that is OK. This thread wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed. I am discussing this thread not on legal grounds, but on my own belief system. I clearly stated in my original post that I would not shoot someone over my dog even though in my mind it would be justifed. I wouldn't do it because I would suffer at the hands of the legal system. The penelty is worse than losing my dog.

Was your dad justifed in shooting the dog ? To me, no. Yeah, the dog ate your chickens. That is what dogs do, they are predators. I personally would have been mad about it, and I would have caught the dog (or tried to catch the dog), call animal control, and ask the guy to pay for the chickens. If he didn't pay, I would just leave it go. A deadly encounter over chickens makes less sense than a dog to me.
Was your mother justifed in shooting the guy ? Again, to me, no. The guy was not threatening your dad with deadly force. And, unlike a gun, simply having a whip in his hands did not make a threat of dealy force. Your dad could have simply went in the house and the guy couldn't have done anything.

Mark Benningfield

January 1, 2003, 11:24 PM

Hello All.

DrJones: Yes, I do. Notice, I did not say that persons convicted of heinous crimes do not deserve the death penalty. Are you trying to equate child molestation with cruelty to animals? If your objection is with the fact that Jesus loves even the slimeballs, then I'm not sure what to say. Here's my point of view, if it helps:
We are instructed not to judge, lest we be judged in turn. This does not mean judge behavior, but worth. When Jesus ran those old boys out of the temple with a whip, he was being pretty judgemental, don't yout think? But he was judging their behavior. What we are cautioned against is judging someone to be unworthy of the good news, beyond redemption. Now, this does not mean that we should never require the forfeit of someone's life, on the grounds that he has not yet had salvation. It is not our job to see that he has it. It is his. But, to require his life, it must be for no less a reason than that he has grievously trespassed on another persons rights. Person, not beast. HTH.

Drizzt

January 1, 2003, 11:26 PM

considering that I care a WHOLE lot more about my dogs than I do a BG, the answer would be obvious...

Mark Benningfield

January 1, 2003, 11:27 PM

Hello all.

444, where I grew up, animal control was a question of hitting the kill zone. :D Besides, once a dog has a taste for chickens, there's no breaking him of it. I've seen it too many times.

444

January 1, 2003, 11:35 PM

Mark, I figured that this was in a rural area and in that time and place, that was the thing to do. But, I wouldn't do it.

Dogs are born with a taste for chickens and just about anything else for that matter. The problem here wasn't that the dog ate the chickens, that was to be expected. The problem was that the owner of the dog let it run loose or allowed it to get loose. There is no doubt in my mind that my dog would eat all the chickens he could, and would kill the rest. But he never has done so because he hasn't had the opportunity. This is the reason that my dog doesn't think rabbits taste like chicken. He has never eaten a chicken.

Drjones

January 1, 2003, 11:38 PM

Mark:

You are clearly a religious man, and I am not.

The fundamental basis for our beliefs differs so greatly.

I was raised in a religious family, went to church often, though I now believe none of it, nor are any of my beliefs today based in any way upon religion.

However, THR is definitely not the place for religious discussion.

Thus, we are just going to have to agree to disagree...

AZTOY

January 1, 2003, 11:44 PM

It's not the taste of the chicken, it's the taste of the blood. Sorry guy's but if a dog get the taste for blood the dog must be put down .:(

Mark Benningfield

January 1, 2003, 11:48 PM

Hello All.

DrJones: As you wish. No hard feelings on my part.

444: We had quite a few dogs that never went after the chickens. Some were hunting dogs, too. So, I disagree that it is something that any dog would do, given the opportunity. I think, maybe, that some dogs are simply not as domesticated as others. But, as far as that goes, any predator, whether it be dog, wolf, coyote, mountain lion, Godzilla, has to be stopped (only one way) or you might as well just go shoot your livestock yourself.

444

January 2, 2003, 12:07 AM

"Sorry guy's but if a dog get the taste for blood the dog must be put down . "
That is ridiculous. Dogs have a taste for blood from day one. They are predators. Just because we feed them dog food from a bowel doesn't change that. Dogs will also go after most anything that runs from them whether it be chickens, cats or people. But, we can train dogs to not do things that we find offensive. Hunting dogs are highly trained animals (good ones). A good bird dog will not go after a bird, he will point. He will also retirive without eating the bird. But, they want to eat it. Most any bird dog has to be trained not to eat the bird. My dog loves meat of course. But he wouldn't dare take meat off my plate. He had to be taught that because it was his natural instinct to do so.

By the way, the thing about rabbits tasting like chicken was supposed to be a joke son, Ah say, that was a joke son. Or at least I thought it was funny.

cratz2

January 2, 2003, 01:30 AM

I don't know... I consider myself an animal lover and sicko sckumbags they may be, I don't see myself putting a bullet in someone I see having carnal contact with a sheep as I drive down the road. Nor do I see myself killing an 18 year old for (gulp) gutting a cat.

Are they troubled? Yup. Do they need help? Probably. Might they turn out to be a serial killer? Could be. But no way am I gonna actually kill someone over torturing an animal. Unless the circumstances were really extenuating.

Gordon

January 2, 2003, 02:00 AM

I am a BIG time dog shooter, and a BIG time dog lover. If a dog attacks my live stock he is a dead dog. Even if hes my dog. But I think on this forum the important thing to remember is back a few years ago in out back Idaho on a small mountain there was a boy who saw an unidentified tresspassing ninja shoot his dog and he bravely shot back and gave his life for his constitutional rights and ours. His mother eventually gave hers too. Now thats what I call reason to use deadly force on your dogs beheft!:mad:

Black Dragon

January 2, 2003, 09:18 AM

The more people I met the better I like my dogs!

Shoot a BG to save my dog.....Yes

My dogs protect the house and me and the Mrs. so I defend the dogs as they defend me.

Have I had to put down a wild dog that was attacking livestock? Yes, I wasn't happy about it but the livestock had to be protected. I've also
put down a wild dog that had attacked my dog. Again I wasn't happy about it but it had to be done.

Beren

January 2, 2003, 10:02 AM

Black Dragon:

This point has been made before, but people seem to be ignoring it.

Is it worth defending your dog at the cost of your liberty and all your worldly possessions? The pending voluntary manslaughter charge (at best; a second degree murder charge is just as likely) would ensure that the wife wouldn't see you except during visitation periods for at least a couple of years, and the civil suit filed by the BG's family would ensure that the wife spent the time living with relatives.

I've seen a couple of arguments:

1. "The dog would alert you to intruders, thereby potentially saving your life, so you should defend its life."

An alarm system would do the same. Should I shoot any man on sight if I catch him messing with my alarm system?

2. "The dog loves me more than any person does and behaves better too."

That doesn't change the fact that the dog, as an animal, does not hold the same intrinsic value as human life. Your dog will never possess the capability to fount knowledge, for one.

Lethal force is only justified to prevent death or grave injury to yourself or a third person.

coati

January 2, 2003, 10:10 AM

1. No way. My beloved dogs are property, everywhere.

2. My moral standards say I cannot.

3. You propose a situation I pray never to be in. I may make a life-changing decision.

Steel

January 2, 2003, 10:46 AM

interesting...

I invision the liberals who have been disarming us law-abiding folks switch and defend the gun owner-turned-dog-protector-with a gun since they may be radical animal rights activists!

Leatherneck

January 2, 2003, 11:11 AM

444Just because we feed them dog food from a bowel
EEEWWWWWW...poor pup.
TC

ahenry

January 2, 2003, 11:25 AM

My dog is my property.

“1. Would you be legally justified in shooting a BG to save your dog (I think I know, or can guess the answer here).”
Yes I would be legally justified to save the life of my dog.

"2. Would you be morally justified in doing so.”
Yes I would be morally justified to save the life of my dog with deadly force.

“3. Given your answer to the above, would you?” Absolutely.

You cannot even use deadly force to protect property if it's just the property you are protecting. and unforetuneatley the dog would qualify as property. Such ignorance. Sigh.

Where do you draw the line? Why is a dog equal to a human's life, when a goldfish is not? It is a matter of how much value I place on my property. I place an extremely high value on the life of my dog. Little on the life of a goldfish. Best way for the criminal to avoid problems with me is to just not damage property that is not his. The choice lies with him however.

Beren

January 2, 2003, 11:42 AM

It is a matter of how much value I place on my property. I place an extremely high value on the life of my dog. Little on the life of a goldfish. Best way for the criminal to avoid problems with me is to just not damage property that is not his. The choice lies with him however.

Using this reasoning, I could "justify" shooting someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum. After all, if I place an extremely high value on my bubble gum, and if you steal it, it's your choice to die!

This thread is veering off into the insane. That you could, in a court of law, justify killing a man because he hurt or killed your dog - this is not even in question. There is not a jury outside of California that would fail to convict someone for such an act.

Prosecutor: "Why did you shoot and kill that man?"
Defendant: "I was in fear of my dog's life, and to save the life of my dog, I shot that man."

Enjoy the next twenty years of state-paid vacation.

The only question is whether it is morally just to do so, and whether you would do so yourself.

ahenry

January 2, 2003, 12:40 PM

Using this reasoning, I could "justify" shooting someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum. After all, if I place an extremely high value on my bubble gum, and if you steal it, it's your choice to die! In the world of extremes, sure.

This thread is veering off into the insane. That you could, in a court of law, justify killing a man because he hurt or killed your dog - this is not even in question. There is not a jury outside of California that would fail to convict someone for such an act. You’re not to familiar with other locations are you? Matter of fact there are plenty of juries in plenty of locations outside of California that would no bill somebody that defended the life of his dog with deadly force. In fact, some places no-bill you for defending (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64313) the lives of your chickens. (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64826) Allowing the use of deadly force in defense of property is as it should be.

Beren

January 2, 2003, 12:59 PM

You’re not to familiar with other locations are you? Matter of fact there are plenty of juries in plenty of locations outside of California that would no bill somebody that defended the life of his dog with deadly force. In fact, some places no-bill you for defending the lives of your chickens. Allowing the use of deadly force in defense of property is as it should be.

I stand corrected. There are indeed places where you may legally shoot someone in the back as they're running away with your chicken.

ahenry

January 2, 2003, 03:22 PM

Amazingly, if you never steal somebody else’s chickens and try to trot off with them, then you won’t ever get shot over it. Pretty crazy how that works ain’t it?

JMLV

January 2, 2003, 03:32 PM

poses a threat to my dog(130 saint bernard) is already dangerous to me hell yes I would shoot him. Given the fact that my dog is generally larger than most folks dogs and more powerfull than most people would beleave. (a 130lb dog is a lot stronger than a 130lb human).
I have no moral quams about the act at all. BG attacked my home. what ever he gets he deserves, weither that be massive laceration & trama from dog(s) teeth, buckshot, or bullet holes from 9mm 115 jhp's.
sorry but I don't feel sorry for him at all. If he's lucky I will call him an ambulence befour I take the dog to the vet hospital(if injured)

Beren

January 2, 2003, 03:40 PM

Question for the IKYIYTMD (I'll Kill You If You Touch My Dog) crowd:

You witness a man taking your dog into their house. Do you call the police, or do you grab the Uzi and enact Saving Private Fido? Or do you knock on their door, demand your dog back, and shoot them if they fail to honor your request?

(Yes, this question presents an unlikely cicrumstance.)

2dogs

January 2, 2003, 03:51 PM

You witness a man taking your dog into their house..... do you grab the Uzi and enact Saving Private Fido?

Question for the IKYIYTMD (I'll Kill You If You Touch My Dog) crowd:
You witness a man taking your dog into their house. Do you call the police, or do you grab the Uzi and enact Saving Private Fido? Or do you knock on their door, demand your dog back, and shoot them if they fail to honor your request? [sarcasm on] Yes; of course. Anytime somebody does anything at all that I disagree with or that might be harmful to me in the slightest, I immediately call down the dogs of war and reduce my enemy and his family to ashes. Afterwards I pillage his home, take his possessions as spoil, and erect monuments to commemorate my victory.[end sarcasm]

Why does this question remind me of arguing with a liberal? Your absurd insistence on reducing the view that the option of deadly force to protect a pet (or property) is the same as actually doing so in every possible instance of even possible damage to the property is somewhat juvenile and inane. You know I have held to this view for many years, and I know people far older than I that have lived their lives around concepts such as this, and shockingly they have never shot or needed to shoot anybody.

Beren

January 2, 2003, 04:40 PM

[sarcasm on] Yes; of course. Anytime somebody does anything at all that I disagree with or that might be harmful to me in the slightest, I immediately call down the dogs of war and reduce my enemy and his family to ashes. Afterwards I pillage his home, take his possessions as spoil, and erect monuments to commemorate my victory.[end sarcasm]

By the tone and wording of some of the responses I've seen on this thread, it seems there are people out there who would feel justified acting in exactly the manner you sarcastically describe.

ahenry

January 2, 2003, 05:14 PM

Would you mind if I asked you to point out the comments that invoke the belief that such an action might just be carried out?

Beren

January 2, 2003, 06:11 PM

Oh, and if I happened across some situation with some sicko hurting or torturing an animal intentionally, I think it perfectly morally correct to send more than a few bullets their way.

I don't know if I could keep myself from shooting someone hurting my dog.

If I caught someone torturing ANY animal, I don't care if they gave birth to it themselves, they should catch bullets.

Would the sick ------ get shot anyway? bet your @$$ he will.

Loyalty and rule of claw and fang predates and preempts all. No moral conflicts.

I don't care if it is legal or not, try to kill my dog and I will shoot you..

just because someone is human doesn't mean a thing to me..

Okay, maybe they don't speak of house razing.

I'm going to bow out of this thread with what little grace and dignity I retain. I may disagree with y'all, but don't think that I view you as animals. You're still human to me. :)

444

January 2, 2003, 06:53 PM

I certainly would feel justified in it, but as I have now stated twice, I wouldn't. There are lots of things that I feel justified in doing, but the law won't allow it, so I don't do it. But the point is moot. If I witness someone leading my dog in his house, it would also probably be the last time I ever saw the guy alive not because of anything I would do, but rather what the dog would do. You see, dogs don't have these legal dilemas. They have been programed with the knowlege they need to survive.

Drjones

January 2, 2003, 06:56 PM

That doesn't change the fact that the dog, as an animal, does not hold the same intrinsic value as human life.

I personally place animal life far higher in value than the lives of many two-legged critters. Fortunately, so do many others here! :D

IMO, as I said several times above, anyone out to wantonly, uneccessarily, and intentionally kill, harm, or maim an animal probably deserves death.

I notice a majority of the argument here is over whether it is morally justifiable to shoot over property. I happen to think it is. I am going to start a whole other thread on that....

Drjones

January 2, 2003, 06:58 PM

Beren: To answer if I really WOULD shoot someone JUST over my dog, probably not, due to the vast legal and financial repurcussions that you stated.

If it were legal, then I would act accordingly. :)

Drjones

January 2, 2003, 07:01 PM

Amazingly, if you never steal somebody else’s chickens and try to trot off with them, then you won’t ever get shot over it. Pretty crazy how that works ain’t it?

I've uttered the same sentiment here, but it seems to be ignored...:rolleyes:

It works the same for lots of things: Don't try to kill, rape, etc. and you won't get shot.

Works for me....

The only people who should have a problem with such a policy are those who wouldn't abide by it, and therefore, those who we would want shot anyway...:evil:

ahenry

January 2, 2003, 08:35 PM

May I most humbly suggest you relax just a tad? Each of those statements you mention seem, to me at least, to be nothing more than a statement that the person would indeed use deadly force if necessary to save the life of their pet or an animal. To my way of thinking nobody said anything remotely suggesting they would go off the deep end with this. Of course sometimes the written word can be difficult to convey nuances, so perhaps I interpreted this incorrectly and you’re right on. In which case, oops. ;)

MLH

January 2, 2003, 10:04 PM

Stealing horses was ( and still is in some places) a hanging offense. So sometimes property laws do allow you certain latitudes. I figure if someone has a gun in his hand and I'm in his presense how can I be sure he only going to shoot the dog and not me too? Don't think I'd take the chance that he's only going after the dog. I say you may be justified in shooting him under these circumstanses. YMMV

Pawcatch

January 3, 2003, 12:10 AM

Like those idiots that set steel traps and never check them,leaving wounded animals to chew their own legs off...sick....

I see drjones has fallen for the propaganda put out by groups like HSUS and PETA.
First off,I'm a trapper that uses foothold traps that checks my traps everyday,but that is just incorrect to say that animals chew off their own legs.Back in the old days when traps had no swivels,animals would basically twist off their foot and people thought that they chewed them off.But modern foothold traps have atleast two swivels on them to prevent this.

Also,using the term "steel trap" is like usung the term "cop killer bullets".Many foothold traps have passed Humane trapping standards in Canada,New Zealand,and soon in the U.S.,so it's just incorrect to label the use of them as torture.They are actually needed to catch problen animals like coyotes and foxes since these smart wild canines will avoid cage or box traps.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting to save your dog................." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!